Is time just an illusion?

~~Tosh~~ · Jun4-07, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Langbein

But why not just answer what time is ?

If it can be wasted it will have to be "something" ?

An illusion can not be wasted, can it ?

If we are living in time, and using or wasting time, and doing things like earning money per hour, paying interrest per year, etc, somebody should now what time is ?

Each moment is a temporary physical object...is that ok?

Neither can we hold or imagine the boundaries of the universe.

~~Doctordick~~ · Jun4-07, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tosh

Each moment is a temporary physical object...is that ok?

Not for me it isn't! I want a little more than your word for it.

Originally Posted by Tosh

Neither can we hold or imagine the boundaries of the universe.

Another statement of seeming "absolute" belief. If you can't prove it to me, I am going to continue my search for the boundries to our understanding under the presumption that "the universe" is a concept we dreamed up. What you need to do is prove to me that your concept of "the universe" is as accurate a representation as you seem to think it is.

Have fun -- Dick

Jun4-07, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Tosh

Each moment is a temporary physical object...is that ok?

"Time" is that which is intermediate between "moments"--each "momemt" is outside "time".

**Siah** · Jun5-07, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Rade

"Time" is that which is intermediate between "moments"--each "momemt" is outside "time".

What is the difference between the 'moment' and the 'intermediate'?

**AnssiH** · Jun6-07, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Hi Anssi, I am sorry I confused you. Sometimes I write a lot without realizing the various ways what I write can be taken; to paraphrase an old cliche, there are more ways to misinterpret what is being said than is dreamt of in your philosophy (which is really the essence of our conversation and I, of all people, should remember that). It is no fault of yours but you have missed intended central point of my ramblings.

The essence of magic is the misdirection of attention and physics has much to do with magic (it makes a lot of sense unless you happen to question something they can not answer). It is often very easy to miss a simple point simply because other issues catch your attention so I perhaps shouldn't have put so many varied issues in a single post; but it does tend to reveal those misunderstandings so I suppose I can be excused. I hadn't intended to send you off on a wild goose chase through google.

Heh, don't worry about it. I educated myself little bit on the mathematical concepts you mention, and the post seems much clearer to me now. I think I even figured out what that tiny LaTeX scribble is :)

Tell me if I got it right;
We are looking for a function that would give us a probability for a certain specific input being found from the table. We should expect squaring & normalization to 1 to be an important part of that function, as long as we want the output to be between 0 and 1. That's basically the gist of it, right?

Plus, whatever that proposed function is, will also determine what numbers apart from the given input we would expect to be possible entries at that specific "t" (~if we were to believe it is "valid" function). Sum over all these possibilities and so forth. Functions yielding the sum of "0" would indeed seem rather invalid :)

Could I ask what browser you are using? I am using “FireFox” in its default mode and the font in the LaTex expressions seems to be actually larger than the font in the main text. Maybe you have some preference set strangely. Sorry I can't help as I am quite ignorant of such things but quite surprised to hear of your difficulty. All the windows machines and “the Internet Explorer” seem to yield about the same result.

I'm using IE7. I'm sure it is displayed the same way in every machine since LaTeX seems to just generate a bitmap image. It just generates some numbers and symbols little bit blurred (even when I've zoomed in), and when I don't know know what to expect, I can't be sure what everything is. I checked out "probability density" and integrals, and now it's obvious that's X1 = infinity & Xn = infinity etc :)

The only reason I even bring up quantum mechanics is that it is the most successful theory ever proposed and, by the time we finish, it will be quite obvious why it is so successful. What I am presenting to you is actually a logical deduction of quantum mechanics itself. Along with that, I will show you some subtle flaws in modern physics and their perspective on quantum mechanics.

Okay, onwards...

By the way, the single most significant question asked by most scientists is, “where do we go from here?” That question makes the implicit assumption that “where we are” is significant. That is not the question I ask; I simply ask, where should we be going? What is important about the difference is that “where we are” can have no bearing on the answer; the answer must be universal.

You mean, we shouldn't burden ourselves unnecessarily by how we have chosen to describe reality thus far?

-Anssi

Jun7-07, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Siah

What is the difference between the 'moment' and the 'intermediate'?

See my thoughts below from another thread on "time":

As I see it, "time" is defined by "moments", time is not composed of moments, thus "moments" are outside of time but are the bounds of time, and the bounds of time are the "nows" (outside time). This must be true because time is divisible (continuous) but moments are not divisible. So, suppose two discrete moments A & C and also some continuous time [E-G]. Now A and C are not in motion (nor in rest) but they form the begin and end of the time [E-G]. Now, since A and C are contrary things (begin and end), like black and white, they can contain something intermediate between them, and that which is intermediate between the two discrete moments A (begin) and C (end) is [E-G] = time, just as that which is intermediate between black and white = grey. Now by "between" it means that time [E-G], after the moment A, must first reach some B before C, thus time must always be "between" the two moments A (begin) and C (end), for there is nowhere else for it to be since it is neither at A nor C. Thus the reason I stated: That which is intermediate between moments IS TIME.. fyi--this argument derived from my understanding of concept of time of Aristotle.

Edit: From another thread I made this claim:

If, following Aristotle on time, we consider that "that which is intermediate between existents is space", then perhaps "that which is intermediate between moments of existents is space-time" ? To which the reply by Plastic Photon: And if 'is intermediate between existents' is taken to mean 'on a closed interval', time never ends, thus, space-time never end

~~Doctordick~~ · Jun7-07, 11:24 PM

Hi again Anssi. Now that you mention it, some of those LaTex symbols do get small. I guess I don’t notice it because I know what is intended. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by AnssiH

You mean, we shouldn't burden ourselves unnecessarily by how we have chosen to describe reality thus far?

If by, “how we have chosen to describe reality thus far”, you mean your world view, then you understand exactly what I meant.

There are a few other minor details which will have to be cleared up sooner or later but for the moment, I would like to get over to that symmetry issue as I think you understand enough of my attack to understand it. At the moment, I have defined the knowledge on which any explanation must depend as equivalent to a set of points in an (x, tau, t) space: i.e., a collection of numbers associated with each t index which I have referred to as B(t). Any explanation can be seen as a function of those indices (the explanation yielding a specific expectation for that set of indices at time t. The output of that function is a probability and may be written

$LaTeX Code: P(x_1,\\tau_1,x_2,\\tau_2,x_3,\\tau_3,\\cdots,x_n,\\tau _n,t)$

Now, the thoughts we need to go through here are subtle and easy to confuse but I think you have the comprehension to follow them. Suppose someone discovers a flaw free solution to the problem represented by some given collection of ontological elements. That means that their solution assigns meanings to those indices used in P. But, if we want to understand his solution, we need enough information to deduce the meanings he has attached to those indices. It is our problem to uncover his solution from what we come to know of the patterns in his assignment of indices. The point being that the solution (which has to contain the definitions of the underlying ontological elements) arises from patterns in the assigned indices. And the end result is to yield a function of those indices which is the exact probability assigned to that particular collection implied by that explanation.

But the indices are mere labels for those ontological elements. If we were to create a new problem by merely adding a number a to every index, the problem is not really changed in any way. Exactly the same explanation can be deduced from that second set of indices and it follows directly that

$LaTeX Code: P(x_1+a,\\tau_1+a,x_2+a,\\tau_2+a,x_3+a,\\tau_3+a,\\cd ots,x_n+a,\\tau_n+a,t)$

must yield exactly the same probability. That leads to a very interesting equation.

$LaTeX Code: P(x_1+a,\\tau_1+a,x_2+a,\\tau_2+a,\\cdots,x_n+a,\\tau_ n+a,t)-P(x_1+b,\\tau_1+b,x_2+a,\\tau_2+b,\\cdots,x_n+b,\\tau_ n+b,t)=0$

Simple division by (a-b) and taking the limit as that difference goes to zero makes that equation identical to the definition of a derivative. It follows that all flaw free explanations must obey the equation.

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{d}{da}P(x_1+a,\\tau_1+a,x_2+a,\\tau_2+a,x_3+a, \\tau_3+a,\\cdots,x_n+a,\\tau_n+a,t)=0$

Let me know if you have any problems with that. I will be out of town for the next few weeks but I will try to get to the forum when I get access to the web but don't expect quick responses.

Have fun -- Dick

**Siah** · Jun8-07, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Rade

As I see it, "time" is defined by "moments", time is not composed of moments, thus "moments" are outside of time but are the bounds of time,

Are 'moments' composed of time? If not, what are they composed of?

Jun8-07, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Siah

Are 'moments' composed of time? If not, what are they composed of?

NO, moments are not composed of time, moments are an "attribute" of time. An attribute is something that is not the entity itself, yet the entity and attribute are not two different things. A "moment" as an attribute of "time" is what can be separated only mentally from time--as opposed to a "part" which can be materially separated from the whole. It is not possible to have a concept of "moment" without a concept of "time", nor a concept of "time" without a concept of "moment". Moments are like electrons, they are "composed" of themselves. Moments, like all attributes of entities, are indivisible. Moments are the "now", the "present". Moments are the limit of the "past" and "future"--the "before" and "after". Moments are infinite in number.

**baywax** · Jun12-07, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Rade

NO, moments are not composed of time, moments are an "attribute" of time. An attribute is something that is not the entity itself, yet the entity and attribute are not two different things. A "moment" as an attribute of "time" is what can be separated only mentally from time--as opposed to a "part" which can be materially separated from the whole. It is not possible to have a concept of "moment" without a concept of "time", nor a concept of "time" without a concept of "moment". Moments are like electrons, they are "composed" of themselves. Moments, like all attributes of entities, are indivisible. Moments are the "now", the "present". Moments are the limit of the "past" and "future"--the "before" and "after". Moments are infinite in number.

Isn't time just a rudimentary form of calculus or calculus of variations. Time, in this sense would then be the result of early human studies of the rate of change. How far off am I? Its been my explaination for time all along so I'm biased.

**AnssiH** · Jun13-07, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

If by, “how we have chosen to describe reality thus far”, you mean your world view, then you understand exactly what I meant.

Yup.

There are a few other minor details which will have to be cleared up sooner or later but for the moment, I would like to get over to that symmetry issue as I think you understand enough of my attack to understand it. At the moment, I have defined the knowledge on which any explanation must depend as equivalent to a set of points in an (x, tau, t) space: i.e., a collection of numbers associated with each t index which I have referred to as B(t). Any explanation can be seen as a function of those indices (the explanation yielding a specific expectation for that set of indices at time t. The output of that function is a probability and may be written

$LaTeX Code: P(x_1,\\tau_1,x_2,\\tau_2,x_3,\\tau_3,\\cdots,x_n,\\tau _n,t)$

Now, the thoughts we need to go through here are subtle and easy to confuse but I think you have the comprehension to follow them. Suppose someone discovers a flaw free solution to the problem represented by some given collection of ontological elements. That means that their solution assigns meanings to those indices used in P. But, if we want to understand his solution, we need enough information to deduce the meanings he has attached to those indices. It is our problem to uncover his solution from what we come to know of the patterns in his assignment of indices. The point being that the solution (which has to contain the definitions of the underlying ontological elements) arises from patterns in the assigned indices. And the end result is to yield a function of those indices which is the exact probability assigned to that particular collection implied by that explanation.

But the indices are mere labels for those ontological elements. If we were to create a new problem by merely adding a number a to every index, the problem is not really changed in any way. Exactly the same explanation can be deduced from that second set of indices and it follows directly that

$LaTeX Code: P(x_1+a,\\tau_1+a,x_2+a,\\tau_2+a,x_3+a,\\tau_3+a,\\cd ots,x_n+a,\\tau_n+a,t)$

must yield exactly the same probability. That leads to a very interesting equation.

$LaTeX Code: P(x_1+a,\\tau_1+a,x_2+a,\\tau_2+a,\\cdots,x_n+a,\\tau_ n+a,t)-P(x_1+b,\\tau_1+b,x_2+a,\\tau_2+b,\\cdots,x_n+b,\\tau_ n+b,t)=0$

Simple division by (a-b) and taking the limit as that difference goes to zero makes that equation identical to the definition of a derivative. It follows that all flaw free explanations must obey the equation.

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{d}{da}P(x_1+a,\\tau_1+a,x_2+a,\\tau_2+a,x_3+a, \\tau_3+a,\\cdots,x_n+a,\\tau_n+a,t)=0$

Let me know if you have any problems with that.

It took me a while to figure out the mathematical expressions, but thank god for Wikipedia :) I studied derivatives and differentiation, and with that limited understanding, I cannot see a fault in the above. But what does it mean? Something being symmetric in our models, implies there is invalid ontological element in use? Hmmm, I think I can see some kind of relationship between this and the artificial concepts in our worldviews (mental models of reality).

Well, how would you put it, what does this say about "symmetry"?

-Anssi

**Siah** · Jun13-07, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Rade

NO, moments are not composed of time, moments are an "attribute" of time. An attribute is something that is not the entity itself, yet the entity and attribute are not two different things. A "moment" as an attribute of "time" is what can be separated only mentally from time--as opposed to a "part" which can be materially separated from the whole. It is not possible to have a concept of "moment" without a concept of "time", nor a concept of "time" without a concept of "moment". Moments are like electrons, they are "composed" of themselves. Moments, like all attributes of entities, are indivisible. Moments are the "now", the "present". Moments are the limit of the "past" and "future"--the "before" and "after". Moments are infinite in number.

I am trying to clarify this earlier statement:
"Time is that which is intermediate between moments"
You say 'moments are an "attribute" of time. As I understand it you are saying that moments have a time-span. Is this correct?

Jun18-07, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by Siah

I am trying to clarify this earlier statement:
"Time is that which is intermediate between moments"
You say 'moments are an "attribute" of time. As I understand it you are saying that moments have a time-span. Is this correct?

No, this is not how I see it. Moments do not have a "time-span"--moments are not divisible, thus no span concept exists for moments. To be "between" logically requires a concept of three. Suppose two moments (A) and (D) at the present, the now. "Time" (B ---> C) is that which is intermediate between the moments, time is neither within A nor D as the present, A and D are limits of time (B----> C). So you see the concept of three--this is what I mean when I say "time is intermediate between moments": (A) | (B ---> C) | (D).

~~Doctordick~~ · Jun19-07, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Well, how would you put it, what does this say about "symmetry"?

The equation is a direct consequence of “symmetry”. The addition of a to every term in a collection of reference numbers is essentially what is normally referred to as a “shift symmetry”. With regard to symmetry, I think I already gave you a link to a post I made to “saviormachine” a couple of years ago (post number 696 in the “Can everything be reduced to physics” thread.”) That post, selfAdjoint’s response to it (immediately below that one) and my response to selfAdjoint’s (post number 703) should be read very carefully before googling around. I will paste one quote which I think is the central issue here.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

My interest concerns an aspect of symmetry very seldom brought to light. For the benefit of others, I will comment that the consequences of symmetry are fundamental to any study of mathematical physics. The relationship between symmetries and conserved quantities was laid out in detail through a theorem proved by Emmy Noether sometime around 1915. The essence of the proof can be found on John Baez's web site. This is fundamental physics accepted by everyone. The problem is that very few students think about the underpinnings of the circumstance but rather just learn to use it.

What I feel everyone seems to miss is the fact that there exists no proof which yields any information which is not embedded in the axioms on which the proof is based. In fact, that comment expresses the fundamental nature of a proof! In my opinion, the fundamental underpinning of Noether’s proof is the simple fact that any symmetry can be seen as equivalent to the definition of a specific differential: i.e., in a very real sense, Noether’s theorem is true by definition as are all proofs.

I was somewhat sloppy when I wrote my last post because the issue was to get you to think about the impact of shift symmetry in ontological labels. It is very interesting to note that x, tau and t are all totally independent collections of indices (the fact that we have laid them out as positions in a three dimensional Euclidean space says that shift symmetry is applicable to each dimension independently). In other words, that equation can actually be divided into three independent equations.

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{d}{da}P(x_1+a,\\tau_1,x_2+a,\\tau_2,x_3+a,\\tau _3,\\cdots,x_n+a,\\tau_n,t)=0$

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{d}{da}P(x_1,\\tau_1+a,x_2,\\tau_2+a,x_3,\\tau_3 +a,\\cdots,x_n,\\tau_n+a,t)=0$

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{d}{da}P(x_1,\\tau_1,x_2,\\tau_2,x_3,\\tau_3,\\cd ots,x_n,\\tau_n,t+a)=0$

I think you should find that quite satisfactory. If not, let me know what confusion it engenders.

The next step involves what is called “partial” differentiation. A partial differential is defined on functions of more than one variable (note that above we are looking at the probability as a function of one variable: i.e., only a is being presumed to change; all other variable being seen as a simple set of constants). When one has multiple variables, one can define a thing called the “partial” derivative. A partial derivative is the derivative with respect to one of those variables under the constraint that none of the other variables change (all other variables are presumed to be unchanging). Essentially, the equations above can be seen as partials with respect to a except for one fact: the probability P is not being expressed as a function of “a”. That is to say, “a” is not technically an argument of P.

On the other hand, the equation does say something about how the other arguments must change with respect to one another. In order to deduce the correct implied relationship, one needs to understand one simple property of partial derivatives. The property that I am referring to is often called “the chain rule of partial differentiation’. I googled “the definition of the chain rule of partial differentiation” and got a bunch of hits on “by use of the definition of the chain rule of partial differentiation …” which seems pretty worthless with regard to exactly what it is. If you know what it is, thank the lord. If you don’t, do you know anyone with enough math background to explain it to you? It is a lot easier to explain in person with a black board; but, if necessary, I will compose a document I think you can understand.

If anyone out there feels they can do the deed in a quick and dirty fashion I will accept the assistance. Or, if anyone can give Anssi a link to a good presentation of the definition, I would certainly appreciate it. Meanwhile, I will await your response.

Have fun -- Dick

PS I’m having a ball. Our first grandchild (we thought we would never get one) will be one year old Sunday and she can sure wear out an old man. She’s not quite walking yet (not by herself anyway) and wants to walk everywhere holding on to your finger (which requires me to walk bent over).

Jun20-07, 11:26 PM

some tutorial links to chain rule:

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~osborn...orial/ECRF.HTM
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/AllBr.../ChainRule.asp
http://www.math.hmc.edu/calculus/tut...ultichainrule/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_rule

~~Doctordick~~ · Jun21-07, 07:32 PM

Thank you Rade; those are all excellent links to good information on the chain rule and how it applies to functions of many variables. With regard to my presentation, the link to “case 1” of ]Paul's Online Math Notes (your second reference) is the most directly applicable to my next step. Paul gives case 1 as the problem of computing dz/dt when z is given as a function of x = g(t) and y =h(t) or, to put it exactly as he states it, Case 1: z=f(x,y), x=g(t), y=h(t) and compute dz/dt).

What we want to do is compute is dP/da, which we know must vanish, but is expressed in terms of the reference labels of our valid ontological elements. We have established that the probability of a specific set of labels is given by an expression of the form,

$LaTeX Code: Probability= P(x_1,\\tau_1,x_2,\\tau_2,x_3,\\tau_3,\\cdots,x_n,\\tau _n,t)$

or, just as reasonably

$LaTeX Code: Probability= P(z_1,\\tau_1,z_2,\\tau_2,z_3,\\tau_3,\\cdots,z_n,\\tau _n,t)$

where our shift symmetry has resulted in the fact that those arguments, when expressed as functions of x and a are given by

$LaTeX Code: z_1=x_1+a, z_2=x_2+a, z_3=x_3+a,\\cdots, z_n=x_n+a.$

With regard to our representation that dP/da vanishes, we can apply the example given by Paul,

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{dz}{dt}=\\frac{\\partial f}{\\partial x}\\frac{dx}{dt}+\\frac{\\partial f}{\\partial y}\\frac{dy}{dx}$

as, in our case, equivalent to

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{dP}{da}=\\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}\\frac{\\partial P}{\\partial z_i}\\frac{dz_i}{da};$

however, in our case,

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{dz_1}{da}=\\frac{dz_2}{da}=\\frac{dz_3}{da}=\\c dots=\\frac{dz_n}{da}=1$ .

which yields the final result that

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{dP}{da}=\\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}\\frac{\\partial}{\\par tial z_i}P = 0$

when the x arguments of P are symbolized by z. But z is just a letter used to represent those arguments; one can not change the truth of the equation by changing the name of the variable. This same argument can be applied to the other independent arguments of P, yielding, in place of the differential expressions in post 462, the following three differential constraints.

$LaTeX Code: \\sum_{i=0}^{i=n}\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x_i}P(x_1,\\tau_1,x_2,\\tau_2,\\cdots,x_n,\\tau_n,t)=0$

$LaTeX Code: \\sum_{i=0}^{i=n}\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\tau_i}P(x_1,\\tau_1,x_2,\\tau_2,\\cdots,x_n,\\tau_n,t )=0$

and

$LaTeX Code: \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t}P(x_1,\\tau_1,x_2,\\tau_2,\\cdots,x_n,\\tau_n,t)=0$

which has utterly no mention of the shift parameter a.

If I get confirmation that the above is understood and accepted as a rational expectation from any mathematical expression of a flaw free explanation of the information represented by those ontological elements underlying that explanation, I will continue by showing you how all of the relationships so far developed can be seen as a single mathematical expression which must be obeyed by each and every flaw free explanation which can be constructed.

I am very much looking forward to your response -- Dick